tacf-x wrote:Why use a mmW seeker? Aren't those incapable of detecting and tracking things from far away in a less than ideal environment? I read about this idea from Key and a lot of people panned it due to the fact that the waveform would be easily absorbed by adverse weather.

That'd be for close in detection- the IIR ostensibly would do the longer range detection.

I don't know why everyone seems to bash the SH so much. AESA radar, JHMCS, and in a purely air to air load out you could carry as many as 12 120Ds and 2 9x plus you still have the center line. Thats alot of fire power for just one jet even though its not a real world load out. Air to ground you can still carry 6 Mk 82 of any variant plus 2 9x and 2 120Ds. I know those missles arnt opperational yet but thats what our jets are testing now and with some pretty impressive results.

The thing may be under powered but when you can suck a door fastner down one intake and basically destroy the engine but it still opperates. The pilot didnt know it even happened untill a few hours after his flight.

Thats the kind of aircraft I would want to ride into battle. Sorry its a little off topic.

navy_airframer wrote:I don't know why everyone seems to bash the SH so much. AESA radar, JHMCS, and in a purely air to air load out you could carry as many as 12 120Ds and 2 9x plus you still have the center line. Thats alot of fire power for just one jet even though its not a real world load out. Air to ground you can still carry 6 Mk 82 of any variant plus 2 9x and 2 120Ds. I know those missles arnt opperational yet but thats what our jets are testing now and with some pretty impressive results.

The thing may be under powered but when you can suck a door fastner down one intake and basically destroy the engine but it still opperates. The pilot didnt know it even happened untill a few hours after his flight.

Thats the kind of aircraft I would want to ride into battle. Sorry its a little off topic.

Fair enough. The RAAF would likely have been better-served by a Strike Eagle derivative (losing the Growler ability, unless a jammer-Eagle was developed), but the SH is a perfectly good aircraft. It's an avionics fighter, not a kinematic fighter, which works fine unless you're fighting 5th-gen wackiness. And in that scenario, you'll very probably have USAF Raptor support.

Though I will point out that a Greek F-4 can carry that payload (IRIS-T in place of 9X) and then some.

southernphantom wrote: Fair enough. The RAAF would likely have been better-served by a Strike Eagle derivative (losing the Growler ability, unless a jammer-Eagle was developed), but the SH is a perfectly good aircraft.

The question though, is how quickly could they have acquired advanced Eagle variants, establish the logistical base/infrastructure, get pilots trained up(it's much easier transitioning from a Hornet to a Super Hornet, than another aircraft type). Additionally, how many Eagles would they be able to afford vs. the Super Hornet? The Eagle is considerably more expensive to acquire/maintain.

It's an avionics fighter, not a kinematic fighter, which works fine unless you're fighting 5th-gen wackiness. And in that scenario, you'll very probably have USAF Raptor support.

Though I will point out that a Greek F-4 can carry that payload (IRIS-T in place of 9X) and then some.

This is a good point. An F-4 with modern avionics and weapons, can still be formidable. A Super Hornet has significantly better agility than an F-4, and state of the art avionics. It's nothing to be trifled with, especially when the fight is at the systems level, and not the platform level.

navy_airframer wrote:I don't know why everyone seems to bash the SH so much. AESA radar, JHMCS, and in a purely air to air load out you could carry as many as 12 120Ds and 2 9x plus you still have the center line. Thats alot of fire power for just one jet even though its not a real world load out. Air to ground you can still carry 6 Mk 82 of any variant plus 2 9x and 2 120Ds. I know those missles arnt opperational yet but thats what our jets are testing now and with some pretty impressive results.

The thing may be under powered but when you can suck a door fastner down one intake and basically destroy the engine but it still opperates. The pilot didnt know it even happened untill a few hours after his flight.

Thats the kind of aircraft I would want to ride into battle. Sorry its a little off topic.

Thanks navy airframe....I lover hearing from people that actually work or fly the SH.....but from my knowledge and from speaking with pilots of the SH and Hornet, the SH has very good acceleration and transonic performance....better then the Hornet from what I have been told straight from SH pilots. I know the supersonic performance it struggles but who goes Mach 2.....please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for great forum boards!!! Love this site!!!

Most fighters would struggle significantly to achieve a speed of mach 2 with any sort of useful payload. The drag is just too much and the SH's engines aren't strong enough to overcome the inherent problems set forth by said drag as well as the raw mass of the plane. For example when an F-15 is loaded with a combat loadout it struggles to get past mach 1.4 due to drag alone. I'm not sure the Super Bug can get to mach 2 even without external stores regardless. The super hornet also uses those canted weapon stations which I would imagine would case a large amount of drag so I don't really think the super hornet would be what you would want when fighting enemies in ACM.